Terminology matters: patient understanding of "opioids" and "narcotics".

BACKGROUND: The terms "opioid" and "narcotic" are often used interchangeably by healthcare providers. The purpose of this study was to compare understanding "narcotics" vs. "opioids." METHODS: A convenience sample of English-speaking women (n = 188), aged 21-45 years, seeking care at a primary care clinic were asked (1) "What is an opioid/narcotic?" (2) "Give an example of an opioid/narcotic?" (3) "Why does someone take an opioid/narcotic?" and (4) "What happens when someone takes an opioid/narcotic for a long time?" Responses were recorded verbatim by a research assistant and then coded independently by two investigators. RESULTS: More than half of respondents (55.9%) responded "don't know" to all 4 opioid questions, while just 3.2% responded "don't know" to all 4 narcotic questions (P < 0.01). Most women were unfamiliar with the term opioid (76.3%) and did not know why someone would take an opioid (68.8%). About two-thirds of respondents were able to give an example of a narcotic (64.2%) and knew the consequences of long-term narcotic use (63.2%). CONCLUSIONS: While more women were more familiar with narcotic, many identified negative connotations with this term. Future research should explore how to improve patient understanding and attitudes regarding both the terms opioids and narcotics.

A validation study of the spoken knowledge in low literacy in diabetes scale (SKILLD).

BACKGROUND: In 2005 the Spoken Knowledge in Low Literacy in Diabetes scale (SKILLD) was introduced as a diabetes knowledge test. The SKILLD has not been validated since its introduction. OBJECTIVE: To perform a validation analysis on the SKILLD. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional observational study of 240 patients with diabetes at an academic family practice center. MAIN MEASURES: SKILLD's correlation with an oral form of the Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT) was used to assess criterion validity. A regression model tested construct validity, hypothesizing that SKILLD score was independently related to health literacy and education level. Content validity was tested using Cronbach's Alpha for inter-item relatedness and by comparing SKILLD items with the content of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) diabetes education website. We assessed inter-rater reliability and bias using Spearman correlation coefficients and sign-rank tests between interviewers scoring the same interview. KEY RESULTS: The SKILLD demonstrated fair correlation with the DKT (Pearson's coefficient 0.54, 95% CI=0.49 to 0.66, p<0.001). Health literacy, education level, male gender, household income, and years with diabetes were independent predictors of SKILLD score in the regression model. Cronbach's Alpha for inter-item relatedness was 0.54. There were some topics on the NIH website not addressed by the SKILLD. The inter-rater correlation coefficient was 0.79 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.91, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SKILLD is an adequate diabetes knowledge test and is appropriate for people of all literacy levels. However, it should be expanded to more completely evaluate diabetes knowledge.

Screening questions to predict limited health literacy: a cross-sectional study of patients with diabetes mellitus.

PURPOSE: Limited health literacy is increasingly recognized as a barrier to receiving adequate health care. Identifying patients at risk of poor health outcomes secondary to limited health literacy is currently the responsibility of clinicians. Our objective was to identify which screening questions and demographics independently predict limited health literacy and could thus help clinicians individualize their patient education. METHODS: Between August 2006 and July 2007, we asked 225 patients being treated for diabetes at an academic primary care office several questions regarding their reading ability as part of a larger study (57% response rate). We built a logistic regression model predicting limited health literacy to determine the independent predictive properties of these questions and demographic variables. Patients were classified as having limited health literacy if they had a Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) score of less than 23. The potential predictors evaluated were self-rated reading ability, highest education level attained, Single-Item Literacy Screener (SILS) result, patients' reading enjoyment, age, sex, and race. RESULTS: Overall, 15.1% of the patients had limited health literacy. In the final model, 5 of the potential predictors were independently associated with increased odds of having limited health literacy. Specifically, patients were more likely to have limited health literacy if they had a poorer self-rated reading ability (odds ratio [OR] per point increase in the model = 3.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-6.63), more frequently needed help reading written health materials (assessed by the SILS) (OR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.26-3.26), had a lower education level (OR = 1.89; 95% CI, 1.12-3.18), were male (OR = 4.46; 95% CI, 1.53-12.99), and were of nonwhite race (OR = 3.73; 95% CI, 1.04-13.40). These associations were not confounded by age. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9212. CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated reading ability, SILS result, highest education level attained, sex, and race independently predict whether a patient has limited health literacy. Clinicians should be aware of these associations and ask questions to identify patients at risk. We propose an "SOS" mnemonic based on these findings to help clinicians wishing to individualize patient education.

Teaching the outstanding medical learner.

Medical students and residents are typically prescribed a standardized curriculum. Learners who have difficultly meeting requirements of this curriculum often require extra attention and an individualized program of remediation. Outstanding medical learners, on the other hand, are rarely given an individualized learning program, even if they can easily master the standardized curriculum. These learners are likely to belong to a group that educators call "gifted adults." No literature on this group of medical learners currently exists, and no research has been conducted on them. This article is designed to begin a dialog on the best approach to educating outstanding medical learners using the framework of the gifted adult. Gifted adults possess a unique set of characteristics and have needs that set them apart from the majority of medical learners. There are also well-described pitfalls that these learners encounter. Gifted adults can best exercise their talents and maximize their potential when they receive an individualized educational approach that focuses on providing intellectual challenges with permission to explore interest areas. Research, publishing, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles are some examples of ways to challenge these learners. They should be strongly encouraged to extensively pursue individual interests. Effort should be made to ensure that these learners have contact with peers and mentors of equal intellectual abilities. Gifted adults who are not intellectually stimulated on a routine basis and are not able to interact with other talented individuals may get bored and frustrated with their education. Medical educators who understand the characteristics and drives of gifted adults will be better able to ensure that these learners are regularly challenged, with needed assistance to avoid common pitfalls.

An introduction to evidence-based medicine.

Incorporation EBM into one's practice will not only make one a better clinician, it also allows one to provide the best possible quality of medical care to his or her patients. Becoming a medical information master is a task that all can learn [8,9]. In a primary care specialty that, by definition, is broad in scope, and with the seemingly overwhelming amount of medical literature that is produced on a daily basis, this task is essential. One constantly should be o the look out for validated evidence that is relevant to everyday practice, focusing on those POEMs that address issues that are common to primary care practice. Using the tools and steps that are outlined in this article, along with taking the Web-based courses that are mentioned in Box 1, will allow the primary care physician to develop the essential skills that are required in today's practice of medicine.

Finding truth from the medical literature: how to critically evaluate an article.

With Internet access available to all, patients are increasingly gaining access to medical information, and then looking to their primary care physician for interpretation. Physicians encounter an "information jungle"--there were 682,121 articles recorded in PubMed in 2005. If clinicians read two articles per day, in 1 year they would be over nine centuries behind in their reading! Although several excellent services that sift and critically assess medical literature are available to physicians, they are not helpful when a patient brings in the latest article. Physicians must have basic skills in judging the validity and clinical importance of these articles. This article provides an overview of a systematic, efficient, and effective approach to the critical review of original research.

Implementation of a Research Participant Satisfaction Survey at an Academic Medical Center.

This descriptive case study covers the development of a survey to assess research subject satisfaction among those participating in clinical research studies at an academic medical center (AMC). The purpose was twofold: to gauge the effectiveness of the survey, as well as to determine the level of satisfaction of the research participants. The authors developed and implemented an electronic research participant satisfaction survey. It was created to provide research teams at the authors' AMC with a common instrument to capture research participant experiences in order to improve upon the quality of research operations. The instrument captured participant responses in a standardized format. Ultimately, the results are to serve as a means to improve the research experience of participants for single studies, studies conducted within a division or department of the AMC, or across the entire research enterprise at the institution. For ease of use, the survey was created within an electronic data capture system known as REDCap, which is used by a consortium of more than 1,800 institutional partners as a tool from the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Participants in the survey described in this article were more than 18 years of age and participating in an institutional review board (IRB)-approved study. Results showed that the vast majority of participants surveyed had a positive experience engaging in research at the authors' AMC. Further, the tool was found to be effective in making that determination. The authors hope to expand the use of the survey as a means to increase research satisfaction and quality at their university.

The other half of the whole: teaching patients to communicate with physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A wide body of research suggests that the nature of communication between patients and physicians is strongly related to health outcomes. Interventions that involve teaching patients to communicate with physicians are important to assess in this context. METHODS: We conducted a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the outpatient setting from 1975 to 2000. Patient communication interventions were classified as high, medium, or low intensive, depending on the length of the intervention, use of personnel, and estimated cost. Characteristics of 16 studies were examined, including sample populations, types of interventions, and the nature of health outcomes. RESULTS: Patient improvement in a variety of outcomes as a result of communication training was demonstrated. Positive change variables included patient communication, medical outcomes, functional status, and adherence to treatment. Studies revealed mixed findings on the outcome of patient satisfaction. All US studies suggested that pre-visit training had no effect on the overall length of the medical visit. CONCLUSIONS: Studies indicated improvement in a variety of patient outcomes. However, the wide variation in study design, interventions, and outcomes hinders the ability to draw well-founded conclusions. Future research needs to further address biopsychosocial outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and their relationship.

Clinical utility of a brief screen for health literacy and numeracy among adults with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) compare Newest Vital Sign (NVS) scores and administration characteristics with the short (S) version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and Spoken Knowledge in Low-Literacy Diabetes (SKILLD) tool and (2) gather information from research assistants (RAs) regarding their perceptions of patient understanding of NVS items. METHODS: Adults, age ? 18 years, with diabetes mellitus visiting a primary care clinic were recruited to participate. An RA orally administered a sociodemographic questionnaire. Patients completed, in random order, the NVS, S-TOFHLA, and SKILLD. Completion time for each tool was electronically recorded, while patients assessed tool difficulty using a 5-point Likert-type scale. RAs' comments regarding patients' understanding of individual NVS items were tallied. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients (mean age=53.8 years, 31% male, 45.1% African American, 28.8% high school graduate) participated. African Americans were significantly less likely to score ?4 on the NVS (adjusted OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.13, 0.42) as compared to Caucasians. NVS scores were highly correlated with S-TOFHLA scores, rho=0.62, and moderately correlated with SKILLD scores, rho=0.39. NVS scores were inversely correlated with completion time, rho=-0.25 and difficulty rating, rho=-0.37. CONCLUSIONS: Related to the care of patients with diabetes, the most important feature of the NVS is that it can quickly provide a clinician with valuable insight regarding their patients' ability to complete a practical skill (ie, interpreting a food label) needed to achieve tight blood glucose control.

Randomized, open-label, parallel-group evaluations of basal-bolus therapy versus insulin lispro premixed therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve control with starter insulin treatment and continuing oral antihyperglycemic drugs: a noninferiority intensification substudy of the DURABLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin glargine and lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro injection [LM75/25]) represent 2 common starter insulin regimen classes: basal and premixed. After initiation of starter insulin therapy, if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are unable to achieve a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level <7.0%, insulin intensification may be indicated. The DURABLE (Assessing Durability of Basal Versus Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy) trial was designed to compare initiating insulin therapy with analogue basal insulin versus premixed analogue insulin in patients unable to achieve good glycemic control while taking multiple oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). OBJECTIVE: To provide objective information about insulin intensification, the DURABLE trial also included a substudy evaluating a systematic approach to advancing insulin therapy in those patients who did not achieve glycemic control with their initial insulin regimen. This substudy, the results of which are reported here, tested the hypothesis that advancing insulin therapy with premixed insulin is noninferior to basal-bolus therapy (BBT) in patients with type 2 DM unable to achieve an HbA1c level < or = 7.0% after 6 months of starter insulin therapy. METHODS: In the main DURABLE study, 2091 patients (age range, 30-80 years) with type 2 DM and HbA1c values >7.0% receiving > or = 2 OADs were randomized to receive insulin glargine (n = 1046) or LM75/25 (n = 1045), both in combination with prestudy OADs. After 6 months, patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% could enter this intensification substudy; OADs except sulfonylureas were continued. Patients originally receiving insulin glargine were enrolled in intensification arm A and were randomized to receive BBT (insulin glargine once daily plus mealtime insulin lispro TID) or LM75/25 BID. Patients originally receiving LM75/25 were enrolled in intensification arm B and randomized to receive BBT or mealtime 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro injection (LM50/50) TID. Insulin doses were adjusted based on preprandial plasma glucose levels. The primary end point was noninferiority of premixed therapy versus BBT with respect to end-point HbA1c. Secondary end points included change in HbA1c and weight, percentage of patients reaching HbA1c target levels, total daily insulin dose, and rates of hypoglycemia. The safety profile was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 475 patients in the insulin glargine + OAD arm of the main study who had HbA1c levels >7.0% at 6 months, 399 (84%) entered intensification arm A. The mean age was 57 years, 53% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (1.0%) at baseline. Of those patients, 199 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 200 were assigned to receive LM75/25. Of the 411 patients in the LM75/25 + OAD arm of the main study who had an HbA1c level >7.0% at 6 months, 345 (84%) entered intensification arm B. The mean age was 55 years, 51% of the patients were male, and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.0% (0.9%) at baseline. Of those patients, 171 were randomly assigned to receive BBT and 174 were assigned to receive LM50/50. At end point, noninferiority of LM75/25 or LM50/50 to BBT was supported, with a 95% CI of -0.10 to 0.37 and -0.25 to 0.25, respectively. At 6 months, HbA1c did not differ significantly from baseline in any group. Regardless of treatment group, <20% of patients achieved an HbA1c level <7.0%. There were no significant differences between groups in total daily insulin dose, weight gain, incidence or rate of hypoglycemia, or incidence of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: No group had significant improvement from baseline in HbA1c. Our study results suggest that premixed therapy, dosed 2 times per day (LM75/25) or 3 times per day (LM50/50), was noninferior to BBT (4 injections/d) in this population of adult patients with type 2 DM previously uncontrolled with OADs plus basal insulin or twice-daily premixed insulin. Clinical-Trials.gov identifier: NCT00279201.

Management of the acute migraine headache.

As many as 30 million Americans have migraine headaches. The impact on patients and their families can be tremendous, and treatment of migraines can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for family physicians. Abortive treatment options include nonspecific and migraine-specific therapy. Nonspecific therapies include analgesics (aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opiates), adjunctive therapies (antiemetics and sedatives), and other nonspecific medications (intranasal lidocaine or steroids). Migraine-specific abortive therapies include ergotamine and its derivatives, and triptans. Complementary and alternative therapies can also be used to abort the headache or enhance the efficacy of another therapeutic modality. Treatment choices for acute migraine should be based on headache severity, migraine frequency, associated symptoms, and comorbidities.